Earlier this fall, I was setting up for a party in San Francisco to honor the career of the Peace Development Fund’s recently retired executive director, Paul Haible, when I heard the news of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I have to say that the name wasn’t familiar to me at the time—little did I know how infamous he would become. It has been discouraging to see how anyone disagreeing with Kirk’s racist, misogynistic, and homophobic views has been condemned even while they condemn his murder. I strongly condemn political violence against anyone, as most people do. We are living in a time when this is happening far too often, similar to the turbulent 1960’s. We view our neighbors as friends or enemies based upon their political leanings. Social isolation, social media, the pandemic, and other factors have created a toxic atmosphere dehumanizing everyone.
This year alone, we have seen an increase in political violence on both conservatives and liberals: including the recent murders of Rep. Hortman and her husband, the arson at Governor Shapiro’s residence, the killing of an ICE agent, the fire at the New Mexico Republican Party, and the shooter at the CDC headquarters. This list doesn’t include a spate of attempts in recent years. It is easy to think of these as isolated incidents perpetrated by mentally ill individuals, yet they are not. Our increasingly intense rhetoric is fueling anger, distrust, conspiracy theories and action.
I also worry about how this spills out into local communities. I serve as the City Council President in Greenfield and have seen first-hand how quickly distrust and conspiracy theories are fueling online conversations and campaigns. In September, a simple attempt to hold a joint meeting between two subcommittees to explore how to work together erupted into drama fueled by suspicion. As a facilitator, we often use a ground rule that asks participants to assume positive intent. In this current climate, that seems like a tall order. Clearly many are assuming the worst.
I am intrigued by the Utah governor’s work to disagree better. “Disagreeing better isn’t just about being nicer to one another—it’s about finding a way to disagree that moves us toward solutions rather than deepening divides.” This approach is sorely needed nationally, and I can see its benefits locally. I have worked to create an atmosphere on our city council where we can disagree yet find solutions. After long meetings, we often grab dinner or a drink together. I’ve watched councilors on different sides of a debate share conversation and a laugh. I’ve also seen councilors find unexpected common ground on complicated issues like our growing unhoused community. We can give others the benefit of the doubt when we get to know one another and see that we all want the best for our community even if we disagree on what is best. I know that it won’t be easy and there will be times when we will not disagree well.
There will be many more dark days ahead. The atmosphere created by the Trump Administration sows fear and divisiveness. The anger and distrust since the killing of Kirk shows just how deep the divides are and our intolerance for any criticism of someone who was murdered for their beliefs. This shutting down of conversation is dangerous. The evening of the party, I stood in a room filled with community activists, donors, and colleagues who shared stories of struggle, kindness, and generosity. I was grateful to have worked with someone who had inspired all of the stories and folks in the room. I don’t know how long it will take to build a tipping point back towards justice, but I know we will get there together through conversation and community. ■